Is campaign flavour sacrosanct in your game?

[Sound of Azure]

In your campaign, do you have rules about what kind of characters are allowed? Are certain magic item types or technologies (smokepowder for instance) banned? Do you place other limits on PCs and NPCs due to them being culturally inappropriate for the setting?

I've been wondering about this somewhat. With the overall freedom of options available in the D&D game, it can occasionally be overwhelming for DMs to review and include everything. All those interesting bits and pieces you can get from the various supplements do pile up. For example, there'll be no Warforged Ninjas in my Selan campaign. Heck, Plate mail hasn't been invented yet in the game.

Is it a bad thing to restrict player choice to enforce a campaign's flavour? Or is it best to allow things in, and see how the campaign adjusts? Is there really a sense of entitlement in players?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

There's nothing wrong with restricting what's available, especially if it creates an overall flavor and theme.

 

[Aus_Snow]

In your campaign, do you have rules about what kind of characters are allowed? Are certain magic item types or technologies (smokepowder for instance) banned? Do you place other limits on PCs and NPCs due to them being culturally inappropriate for the setting?

Yes, yes and yes. And more.

With the overall freedom of options available in the D&D game, it can occasionally be overwhelming for DMs to review and include everything. All those interesting bits and pieces you can get from the various supplements do pile up.

Personally, I believe that all these options should be treated as such (i.e., as optional.) There is nothing even in the RAW that states that such things must be permitted in any (let alone every) campaign.

Is it a bad thing to restrict player choice to enforce a campaign's flavour?

NO.

Is there really a sense of entitlement in players?

If there is, it needs to be crushed. Swiftly, and without mercy.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Well, Whizbang and Aus seem to have covered the topic rather nicely. No need for me to elaborate further.

 

[Thurbane]

In your campaign, do you have rules about what kind of characters are allowed? Are certain magic item types or technologies (smokepowder for instance) banned? Do you place other limits on PCs and NPCs due to them being culturally inappropriate for the setting?

I've been wondering about this somewhat. With the overall freedom of options available in the D&D game, it can occasionally be overwhelming for DMs to review and include everything. All those interesting bits and pieces you can get from the various supplements do pile up. For example, there'll be no Warforged Ninjas in my Selan campaign. Heck, Plate mail hasn't been invented yet in the game.

Is it a bad thing to restrict player choice to enforce a campaign's flavour? Or is it best to allow things in, and see how the campaign adjusts? Is there really a sense of entitlement in players?

I occasionally run my own homebrew with it's own flavor, and the guys who play acknowledge and enjoy the fact.

For instance, in my campaign world, Gnomes and Halflings are extinct after a massive series of (ancient) wars involving all of the major races; arcane spells of the Necromancy school are banned (and carry a taint if used); all Wizards are required to nominate a school of specialty; the players are limited to seven basic gods based loosely on Sumerian myhtos (barring demihuman gods, who are analogous with these seven, but with different aspects); and Barbarians are limited to having one of two small areas of the known world as their homeland...

 

[Sound of Azure]

Well, Whizbang and Aus seem to have covered the topic rather nicely. No need for me to elaborate further.

Tee hee. It would seem so!

 

[Sejs]

In your campaign, do you have rules about what kind of characters are allowed? Are certain magic item types or technologies (smokepowder for instance) banned? Do you place other limits on PCs and NPCs due to them being culturally inappropriate for the setting?

Yep, plenty. No psionics at this time (plot point), no incarnum, and no martial initiates (shoehorning). No races above LA +1; not ECL mind you, LA. Nothing related to the Underdark (campaign world issue). The game takes place in the Forgotten Realms, so unless you are able to come up with a reason that blows my socks clear the heck off, that means you're restricted in regard of material from other settings such as Eberron. However, as a paralel, one of my players did indeed de-sock me quite throughly and was allowed to make the Shifter he wanted as a result, so I'm not made of stone on the issue. The game starts on the Sword Coast, in Waterdeep, in midwinter; it is your job to tell me why your character is there. Want to be from Rashemon? Fine by me, but you're in Waterdeep here and now, come up with a reason. Want to be from Al Qadim? Fine by me, but you're in Waterdeep here and now, come up with a reason. Want to be a Lantanese cloistered cleric of Gond with a starwheel pistol and dreams of becoming a Techsmith? Fine by me, but you're in Waterdeep here and now, come up with a reason.

And all that's just an example. Placing restrictions that serve to aid the tone and flavor of the campaign are a perfectly fine thing. They can really help your players get into the proper mindset, actually. Lays down some ground rules so they're not left adrift in a sea of infinite possibility. That, of course, assumes you already have a theme and plot framework all ready to go, though.

I've been wondering about this somewhat. With the overall freedom of options available in the D&D game, it can occasionally be overwhelming for DMs to review and include everything. All those interesting bits and pieces you can get from the various supplements do pile up. For example, there'll be no Warforged Ninjas in my Selan campaign. Heck, Plate mail hasn't been invented yet in the game.

One of the best things a DM can do is learn how to say no without it being a personal affront. Like you said - there are a lot of options out there, and they grow by the day. If you want to include everything that is fine, but if you don't, that is equally fine. Neither choice is more correct than the other. *nod*

Is it a bad thing to restrict player choice to enforce a campaign's flavour? Or is it best to allow things in, and see how the campaign adjusts? Is there really a sense of entitlement in players?

Both are just dandy. Really they're two completely seperate ways of running your game. One says here is the set up, you adjust to it. The other says here is the set up, I will adjust it to you. In the end the best tends to be a happy medium somewhere between the two, give and take on both sides of the screen.

As for a sense of entitlement in players, that varies from person to person. I know none of my players assume that just because it's in an official book that they have access to it without DM approval, but I can't say one way or the other for someone else out there playing the game half a world away. *shrug*

 

[Shadowslayer]

In your campaign, do you have rules about what kind of characters are allowed? Are certain magic item types or technologies (smokepowder for instance) banned? Do you place other limits on PCs and NPCs due to them being culturally inappropriate for the setting?

I've been wondering about this somewhat. With the overall freedom of options available in the D&D game, it can occasionally be overwhelming for DMs to review and include everything. All those interesting bits and pieces you can get from the various supplements do pile up. For example, there'll be no Warforged Ninjas in my Selan campaign. Heck, Plate mail hasn't been invented yet in the game.

Is it a bad thing to restrict player choice to enforce a campaign's flavour? Or is it best to allow things in, and see how the campaign adjusts? Is there really a sense of entitlement in players?

I say the only correct answer is "It depends on the group"

If the majority of your guys are creatively into that stuff, then its great. Itsusually best if you have a well established group.

If its a group that just wants to play regular D&D, then you're being a pain in the ass when you start doing that...especially when its a thrown together group from a game shop or something.

My own feeling as a player is that I can live with it if the DM doesn't want to deal with aftermarket supplements. I'm not a big fan myself. But I find it annoying when standard PHB stuff is disallowed. I come to the table to game...not to spend the night haggling with the DM over whether stuff "fits his vision" or not.

 

[Sound of Azure]

Sejs

That's an interesting approach Sejs. Putting the onus on the player to explain how such a character came to be in the campaign region is a great idea, IMO.

With what will be a well defined description of regions for my campaign, I'm hoping that most character types can be allowed. I gues I lean toward having a set of ground rules in place. I'd prefer not to annoy the players though.

Shadowslayer

Yeah, I can see that. As for denying certain parts of the PHB, well I agree for the most part. I personally dislike it when things from the PHB are changed without having it written down. For Selan, many parts of the PHB (classes mainly) are altered or disallowed. But all of this is defined in advance. Would having a detailed house rule book help in your opinion?

 

[Aus_Snow]

But I find it annoying when standard PHB stuff is disallowed. I come to the table to game...not to spend the night haggling with the DM over whether stuff "fits his vision" or not.

I agree with nearly everything you posted, by the way.

However, I think what I've quoted there looks a bit like "A, therefore B", where A does not necessarily lead to B at all. In other words, a DM disallowing standard PHB stuff (core material, then) doesn't imply that the players will have to haggle or argue about rules. Sorry if I managed somehow to misread you, though.


Anyway, the DM needs to be absolutely clear as to what is allowed / what is disallowed from the very outset. If this is so, it shouldn't matter at all *what* is allowed/disallowed, within reason. If there isn't much variation from the RAW, then a verbal rundown should be fine. Otherwise, some completely legible, comprehensible and consistent written house rules (given out some time prior to chargen, of course) are the way to go. This is (IMO) a player's entitlement, if anything is.